Seasonality in visitor arrivals is one of the greatest challenges faced by tourist destinations. Seasonality is a major issue for sustainable tourism as it affects the optimal use of investment and infrastructure, puts pressure on resources and can create negative experience of crowding at destinations. Peripheral areas commonly experience more pronounced fluctuations in visitor arrivals. Iceland is one of those destinations. Although the number of tourists visiting the country has multiplied in recent years, seasonality is still a major challenge, especially in the more rural peripheral areas of the country. Iceland’s high season for tourism occurs during its brief summer (June to August), but in recent years more people visit the country on shorter winter trips, creating new management challenges. This research is based on an on-site questionnaire survey conducted in seven popular nature destinations in Iceland which compares the experience of summer and winter visitors. The results show that winter visitors are more satisfied with the natural environment while their satisfaction with facilities and service is in many cases lower. The areas are generally perceived as being more beautiful and quieter in winter than in summer. However, most destinations are considered less accessible and less safe in the winter. Tourists are much less likely to experience physical crowding during winter, although winter visitors are more sensitive to crowds, most likely because of expectations of fewer tourists. Finally, this research shows that tourists are less likely to encounter negative effects of tourism on the environment in the winter, (e.g., erosion or damage to rocks and vegetation), than in summer. The results highlight the importance of understanding visitor perceptions in a seasonal and temporal context.

No abstract

Opportunities in the tourism industry along with the harnessing of energy resources are commonly referred to as means of dealing with changes in employment structure, to counteract depopulation in rural areas, and as a way to create capital. Both fields utilize nature as a resource, but can they coexist or are conflicts foreseeable? In order to find out whether the tourist industry consider that proposed power plant developments will diminish the possibilities of the tourism sector to strengthen local settlements semi-structured interviews were conducted with 65 tourist service providers in six different parts of Iceland. In the opinion of the interviewees the tourism sector is the industry that offers the best long-term possibilities to strengthen the economy in rural areas and most of them had seen clear indications of this in recent years. Many interviewees felt that energy production and tourism do not concur because the negative effects energy production can have on nature, the core resource for the tourist industry. Uncertainty over where power developments will be located was thought to have delayed investment and marketing efforts in certain areas. A few of the interviewees mentioned examples of successful cohabitation of energy production and tourism and it was pointed out that favourable collaboration between the two industries could diminish their conflict of interest. Moreover, it was stated that the income from both industries could reach the areas where it was generated more effectively.

No abstract